I added several algorithms that extent STL algorithms set. I use them in my Boost.Test development. But since they seems to be generic and IMO should be
Mini-reviews would be very useful. I�m shur that each boost developer/user could contribute a few small, useful algorithms. It would be a great way to increase the level of participation by developers who want to contribute but don�t have the time to write a complete library. To get things started, as Review Manager, I could start by collecting submissions by other boost members and present them to the group monthly or bi-monthly. We could call this the Monthly Boost Algorithms review. (I have at-least ten algorithms that I could contribute for consideration for the first few reviews.) We should also discuss to where to place the algorithms /code within the boost namespace. I could create a document that lists all the algorithms under consideration with a small summary. The boost members could than accept/reject each algorithm and offer suggestions. More to follow in the next few day� Any thoughts? Tom Brinkman reportbase@yahoo.com Review Wizard On May 23, 2004, at 6:06 AM, Gennadiy Rozental wrote: present in STL I propose to push them in boost/algorithm.hpp (or under boost/algorithm). I remember there was a discussion already about these algorithms. On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 Herv� Br�nnimann` wrote:
There was an idea of mini-reviews tossed around. This wouldn't include range / container traits (as Thorsten Ottosen or John Torjo are doing) since it's a much bigger scope, but for one or two functions, a single header, it seems an overkill to have a review. Can we have an Algorithms Review Manager under the Review Manager (as he see fits to forward requests) for the subspace boost::algorithm?
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:17:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Brinkman wrote
Mini-reviews would be very useful. Im shur that each boost developer/user could contribute a few small, useful algorithms. It would be a great way to increase the level of participation by developers who want to contribute but dont have the time to write a complete library.
Sounds like a cool idea to me :-)
To get things started, as Review Manager, I could start by collecting submissions by other boost members and present them to the group monthly or bi-monthly. We could call this the Monthly Boost Algorithms review. (I have at-least ten algorithms that I could contribute for consideration for the first few reviews.)
We should also discuss to where to place the algorithms /code within the boost namespace.
I could create a document that lists all the algorithms under consideration with a small summary. The boost members could than accept/reject each algorithm and offer suggestions.
We've been informally gathering them on the Wiki for a couple years now :-) http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?STLAlgorithmE... There's a lot of good ideas there and short of string and container algorithms most of them have yet to find a home in Boost. And really, I'm certain there are many more out there.
More to follow in the next few day Any thoughts?
I think this would be a useful endeavor. Now that we have BoostBook I think the process of adding one of these could be streamlined down to writing a header with the algorithm and an xml file with the description. Now for the one worry, we still have a backlog of completed libraries to review -- we owe it to the authors of these works to get to them as fast as we can. Jeff
Tom Brinkman <reportbase@yahoo.com> writes:
To get things started, as Review Manager, I could start by collecting submissions by other boost members and present them to the group monthly or bi-monthly.
Nit: Tom, you are the _Review Wizard_, which we appreciate very much. Review Managers fill a different role. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Tom Brinkman <reportbase@yahoo.com> writes:
Mini-reviews would be very useful. Im shur that each boost developer/user could contribute a few small, useful algorithms. It would be a great way to increase the level of participation by developers who want to contribute but dont have the time to write a complete library.
I should also point out that we have the concept of fast track reviews http://www.boost.org/more/formal_review_process.htm#Fast-Track but I don't think these things meet the criteria. It's up to you whether to introduce yet another kind of review process, but I'm concerned that might end up with a hodgepodge of not-very-thoroughly-inspected and not-very-interoperable components. So, how will we keep the overall quality high? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Mini-reviews would be very useful. I’m shur that each boost developer/user could contribute a few small, useful algorithms. ....
... but I'm concerned that might end up with a hodgepodge of not-very-thoroughly-inspected and not-very-interoperable components. So, how will we keep the overall quality high?
That was my initial reaction to the idea of adding a few algorithms monthly, by many different authors. I had a quick look at the Wiki page and there are quite a few there. If everyone with useful algorithms added them to that page it might be possible to then take the whole lot, organize them with consistent naming schemes, argue about which ones are redundant, etc. and then add them to Boost in one go. Or that might turn out to be too much work and never happen :-). Darren
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:upt6ibdyw.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
It's up to you whether to introduce yet another kind of review process, but I'm concerned that might end up with a hodgepodge of not-very-thoroughly-inspected and not-very-interoperable components. So, how will we keep the overall quality high?
I propose that we use some time to establish a reasonable amount of categories of algorithms. We already have string related, I'm working on statistics related, and there are probably more categories out there. Then, once we have these categories, one or two persons (preferable persons with domain knowlegde) must take responsibility for the overall quality of that library and inspect new mini-submissions and work with the new authors to ensure their contribution will fit into the overall scheme. Then a formal mini-review should follow. br Thorsten
On Jul 27, 2004, at 6:42 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:upt6ibdyw.fsf@boost-consulting.com...
It's up to you whether to introduce yet another kind of review process, but I'm concerned that might end up with a hodgepodge of not-very-thoroughly-inspected and not-very-interoperable components. So, how will we keep the overall quality high?
I propose that we use some time to establish a reasonable amount of categories of algorithms. We already have string related, I'm working on statistics related, and there are probably more categories out there. Then, once we have these categories, one or two persons (preferable persons with domain knowlegde) must take responsibility for the overall quality of that library and inspect new mini-submissions and work with the new authors to ensure their contribution will fit into the overall scheme. Then a formal mini-review should follow.
At what point are there enough algorithms under the same category that we should just call it a "full" review? Doug
"Doug Gregor" <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:7DEAB5E4-DFD3-11D8-BD44-000D932B7224@cs.indiana.edu... | | On Jul 27, 2004, at 6:42 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote: | > contribution will fit into the overall scheme. Then a formal | > mini-review should follow. | | At what point are there enough algorithms under the same category that | we should just call it a "full" review? Good question! I don't gave an definite answer. I would prefer that the main contribution is organized by a few people; this main contribution should then be given a full review. And then extra small contributions are mini-reviewed. Take the string-algorithms as an example. I hope Pavol will encourage people to add extra functions and work out their interface with him and others on the list. I don't see the first real review happening without some group with the main responsibility. And I don't see very small contributions happening on their own because I fear the big picture is lost. br Thorsten
Hi, On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 03:47:14AM +1000, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Doug Gregor" <dgregor@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:7DEAB5E4-DFD3-11D8-BD44-000D932B7224@cs.indiana.edu... | | On Jul 27, 2004, at 6:42 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
| > contribution will fit into the overall scheme. Then a formal | > mini-review should follow. | | At what point are there enough algorithms under the same category that | we should just call it a "full" review?
Good question! I don't gave an definite answer.
I would prefer that the main contribution is organized by a few people; this main contribution should then be given a full review. And then extra small contributions are mini-reviewed. Take the string-algorithms as an example. I hope Pavol will encourage people to add extra functions and work out their interface with him and others on the list.
I don't see the first real review happening without some group with the main responsibility. And I don't see very small contributions happening on their own because I fear the big picture is lost.
I completely agree. Mini-reviews are very good idea, provided, the there is a person/group that is responsible for the overal picture for a particular algorithms group. During the development of the string algo lib, I have found that there are several useful facilities that are orthogonal to an algorithm functionality. A good example is the facility that evolved to Boost Range library. These facilities should be reused by all algorithm. In addtion issues like directory organization, namespace usage and etc. are also important to form a consistent algorithmic library. If core issues are settled, than the "mini-review" approach can be very good alternative. Regards, Pavol.
Pavol Droba <droba@topmail.sk> writes:
I don't see the first real review happening without some group with the main responsibility. And I don't see very small contributions happening on their own because I fear the big picture is lost.
I completely agree. Mini-reviews are very good idea, provided, the there is a person/group that is responsible for the overal picture for a particular algorithms group.
Fine, but let's not get caught in a trap of trying to review every new function or algorithm. Traditionally, once a library is accepted, its maintainer is free to expand its functionality at will. We should have some way to determine that certain contributions ought to be reviewed, so that we don't get bogged down in beaurocracy. Perhaps this ought to be at the discretion of the maintainer? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:34:35AM -0700, David Abrahams wrote:
Pavol Droba <droba@topmail.sk> writes:
I don't see the first real review happening without some group with the main responsibility. And I don't see very small contributions happening on their own because I fear the big picture is lost.
I completely agree. Mini-reviews are very good idea, provided, the there is a person/group that is responsible for the overal picture for a particular algorithms group.
Fine, but let's not get caught in a trap of trying to review every new function or algorithm. Traditionally, once a library is accepted, its maintainer is free to expand its functionality at will. We should have some way to determine that certain contributions ought to be reviewed, so that we don't get bogged down in beaurocracy. Perhaps this ought to be at the discretion of the maintainer?
This is fine with me and probably should be fine with most of the maintainers. However, now I'm starting to get lost what was the original idea of mini-reviews? Maybe thay can be used to check facilities, that are not strictly related to a particular library/group and to promote them to something official. But AFAIR fast-track reviews were designed for this purpose. Any ideas? Pavol
Tom Brinkman wrote:
Mini-reviews would be very useful. I’m shur that each boost developer/user could contribute a few small, useful algorithms. It would be a great way to increase the level of participation by developers who want to contribute but don’t have the time to write a complete library.
I think that's a nice idea. But as David Abrahams said (about keeping the overall quality high), perhaps on these mini-reviews we should be reviewing only a small pack of algorithms at once. The algorithsm could be categorized by the thing they're trying to solve (a pack would be constituted by all algorithms fitting this category). [note: in Wiki, they seem to already by categorized] Since developers are busy in general, I think such a monthly mini-review would suffice (by-monthly is too much for me). Best, John -- John Torjo Freelancer -- john@torjo.com Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal -- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all -- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ Professional Logging Solution for FREE -- http://www.torjo.com/code/logging.zip (logging - C++) -- http://www.torjo.com/logview/ (viewing/filtering - Win32) -- http://www.torjo.com/logbreak/ (debugging - Win32) (source code available)
participants (8)
-
Darren Cook -
David Abrahams -
Doug Gregor -
Jeff Garland -
John Torjo -
Pavol Droba -
Thorsten Ottosen -
Tom Brinkman